Mission - Resources - Papers

Evangelism and the Wholeness of Mission

By The Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali Bishop of Rochester, England

I am very glad that I have come to you during this season of Easter and of course it is the Feast of the Ascension on Thursday, but it is Eastertide still until we come to Pentecost itself, and Easter begins with a particular letter doesn’t it? Easter begins with an E and so I want to begin with three E’s about Easter, so that whatever else we do will be related to the good news of Jesus rising from the dead.

The first thing about Easter that begins with an E, which has struck me is Endurance, endurance and endurance primarily of God himself. The divine persistence you might want to say. Going back to Bishop Mano Rumalshah’s taxi driver in New York who was saying that God must now give up and of course the Christian answer is no. God is not giving up. However we want to make sense of our world, which is an imperfect world of course. Not just that human beings have despoiled it, of course we have done that, but what the world itself is in the process of becoming. In this imperfect world, in a world to which human evil has also contributed, if we are going to talk about God at all, it must be a God who persists, who works his purpose through this imperfection, bringing about the good, bringing about beauty that we see all around us, bringing around order both in our material world and in our human society.

So the first thing about the endurance of Easter has to do with God himself, God’s endurance, but it also has to do with what endures in us and for us. What is it that is essentially human? Now if I asked you, you would give many different answers to that question. It may be that sense of creatureliness and dependence on a supreme being that you think is most valuable about human beings. It may be our awareness of the difference between right and wrong. It may be how we make sense of ourselves and of the world, it may be human creativity, so many things that you could say and I am sure will say. It is what is enduring about human beings that Easter is about. It is God’s declaration that what is enduring about the human person is within the purposes of God and it is something that is not just passing, something that is not just ephemeral.

So Easter reminds us of what is enduring, God's endurance and what is enduring in us, but it is also about Embodiment. If the Bible has any kind of anthropology, it is that human beings are body, soul and spirit. The Bible does not have a view of the human person which at any stage regards it as valuable because of some kind of disembodied survival. So the enduring is not about disembodied survival of a soul, it is about the whole person, it is about embodiment, and we may say that is a particular insight of the Bible, the wholeness of the human person. Easter is about that because Easter affirms in the end the truth of the incarnation. Now we cannot believe that God has become a human person, lived as a human person, taught as a human person, healed people as a human person, fed them but then when it comes to Easter, we suddenly start talking about a spiritual reality. You see the embodiment has to be about not only in the crib and in the manger but also at the tomb and that embodiment of the risen Lowhich we affirm at Easter, is also true of us, it is the clue to God’s purpose also for us.

The enduring, the embodied and then Easter is also about our Environment. The environment, in which we live, it is also about ecology, it is also about the transformation of the whole of creation. Easter is not just about our own salvation and redemption, it is also about the transformation of creation, it is the truth that creation is not simply futile but that it is moving towards the fulfilment of God’s purposes and that gives us a commitment to the rest of creation, ourselves of course, but also to the rest of creation.

I thought I would begin with those three E’s about Easter because they relate to evangelism and the wholeness of mission. Talking about the wholeness of mission, in the Anglican Communion and indeed in the world-wide church, we are learning about the wholeness of mission particularly from churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is there that people do not see the divide between mission and development for instance. In the West that divide has now been made in such a way that it is almost impossible to overcome it. What has Christian Aid to do with USPG? I think it was Zac mentioned this is his talk about life before death. In the lives of ordinary people, it is not untrue to say that if Christian Aid is about life before death, then CMS and USPG are about life after death. That kind of wholly unacceptable division that has been made between the proclamation of the Gospel and how we serve our fellow human beings. I certainly found, in my time at CMS in particular, that the Churches in Africa, because of their traditional beliefs and va are able to hold the two together. Bishop Mano was asking how God is present and working in people’s cultures and African ideas about the wholeness of the human person and indeed inter-relationships in society.

(Ubuntu, I am because we are,) have contributed to maintaining this wholeness of mission. Christians should be concerned for the whole person’s healing, feeding, education and spiritual development. In Isaiah 61 the prophet who is sent to proclaim the good news, and of course in Luke 4 that Zac had mentioned yesterday, we find Jesus himself saying that he had been appointed to bring the good news to the poor. These two words are used bisser in Hebrew in Isaiah 61 and euangelizomai in Greek in Luke 4, are both translated quite often by the word to preach, to preach the good news, in English certainly. It would be interesting to hear what other languages say, but of course the words mean much more than that. Bissçr is the word from which you get Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Bashâra, it means something like announcing good news which is going to change people’s lives. Mubashir being the one who brings the good news. It is a radical change, you could say and of course in the context of the latter part of Isaiah it means the end of the exile and the beginning of a new kind of life for God’s ancient people. For Jesus, certainly it meant the beginning of his ministry of healing, feeding, teaching. So it is not just preaching, I mean this is the fundamental point, proclamation and praxis of what we do has once again been divided unnecessarily in a way which the Bible does not do. These words in their respective passages, Isaiah 61 and Luke 4, mean the announcement of God’s decision to change people’s lives. This is based of course on what God has done in the past; continual appeal to what happened in Egypt, to how God brought his people out of Babylon to what God has done in Christ of course above all. But that appeal to the past is made to affirm what God is doing in the present and to assure us of what he is going to do in the future. And that is the basis for the wholeness of mission it is God’s concern for the whole of our story not just the spiritual bit of it.

So having had three Es, some of you are not wholly surprised to know that I have now got some Ps. In looking at the wholeness of mission and the place of evangelism within it we must, I think as Anglicans, begin with Presence. Now it is over a hundred years since the publication of a very important book in the Anglican Tradition, Lux Mundi which was edited by Bishop Charles Gore and this book emphasised the doctrine of the incarnation as central for Anglicans. The centenary of the publication of this book was celebrated a few years ago by the publication of another edited by Robert Morgan called: “The Religion of the Incarnation”. Well that may be going too far but the point is that the doctrine of the incarnation has been central, not only to an Anglican understanding of God but to our understanding of the nature of the church.

You know the question was asked: “What is the Church?” last night quite frankly and one Anglican answer has to do with Christian presence. Now in a way Anglicanism has anticipated even Lux Mundi and Bishop Charles Gore because the way in which the parochial system was established had an incarnational basis to it. The parochial system, as you know, was established by Theodore of Tarsus, the only Asian to have been Archbishop of Canterbury in the seventh century. It has lasted until now, it has its own weaknesses and its strengths but its basis is a commitment to Christian presence in every community. Now we may say that even Theodore of Tarsus was anticipated by the mission of Augustine. Augustine was a very fearful missionary, by the way, not bold at all, he tried to run away after Pope Gregory had sent him to England. He tried twice to run away and had to be brought back to the mission field and he was constantly writing to Gregory for advice. “What should I do next” etc. Well then he got to Kent, you know he came to Canterbury first and then the same missionaries came to Rochester, so Canterbury has celebrated its fourteen hundred anniversary 597 and we will be celebrating it in 2004. But he was always uncertain about how to tackle the missionary task and constantly writing to Pope Gregory asking for advice. One question in his mind was what to do with the pagan shrines of the Kentish people.

I think somebody was saying yesterday, that the Church of England always seems to have been there, but it wasn’t there then, it was in the process of becoming, you know. Not being church but becoming one. He wrote to Gregory, “what shall I do with the pagan shrines?” What do you think Gregory’s answer was? What do you think Pope Gregory might have said to St Augustine of Canterbury? Leave them there he might have said, or completely destroy them, burn them with fire. Some missionaries did that, Boniface and others who evangelised the Low Countries and Germany, specialised in destroying pagan places of worship. But Gregory wrote back to Augustine, said: “Don’t destroy them, use them for Christian Worship” and this is actually what Augustine did and sometimes when I stand in an ancient parish church in England, I wonder how far the spiritual roots go back. So presence, Anglican Commitment to presence goes back a very long way.

At the Reformation there were two kinds of presence that were emphasised, one was Christian presence in the nation. Now there are historical reasons for this because this was the sort of time when European Nations were coming to an awareness of themselves as nations, as nation states and so it was right to emphasise the identification of the Church with the Nation, the Church of England. That had actually been done before the Reformation, even in the Magna Carta, Ecclesia Anglicana is mentioned, but it was particularly emphasised at the Reformation, commitment to a particular people, but it was also emphasised once again, re-emphasised, in the parish system.

These emphases actually also had weaknesses, the identification with a particular people may have been an over identification and so many churches of the Reformation were unable to have any vision for world mission. The Roman Catholic Church by contrast had a very vigorous vision for world mission at that time in the so called Counter Reformation, and one Roman Catholic objection to the reformation was that they could turn people into ‘heretics’ but they could not evangelise the heathen. In Roman Catholic polemic of the time, you see this charge, and there is some justice in it even though the Counter Reformation itself made of course many serious mistakes. The question for Anglicans is how this commitment to presence can be expressed today. The parish has been a geographical entity, the nation is both geographical and has been in the past anyway ethnically centred. What about today? In the west certainly people don’t give too much importance to the place where they live; their lives are not shaped by that. They are shaped by the networks to which they belong. They may be professional networks, or the friends that they have, the common interests they might share, such as music or literature or art or football or whatever it might be, and how is Christian presence to be expressed in such cultural contexts?

In Africa, I look forward to hearing from Africans about this, but I have been very conscious in all my visits to Africa of the importance of tribal relationships. Zac was talking about the clan, well that is another kind of clan, another kind of relational entity. But to what extent is it permissible, even desirable to express the structures of the church, the worshipping life of the church, the language of the church, its evangelism in tribal forms or must the tribe always be transcended? Is there an either or here or a both and? Can we express the faith authentically in a tribal form but also belong to a wider fellowship? It is a question not only of course, in Africa but also in parts of Asia where you may not have tribes, you certainly have clans. To what extent should Christian faith be expressed in such particular terms? Of course missionaries have been doing this any case. Bishop Mano was talking about the history of mission in the last two hundred years or so in South Asia and the fact that the missionaries actually began with the higher castes and the educated. The Jesuits attempted both in China and in India to create a rite, which would appeal to the intellectuals to the upper castes and the ruling classes. And even the CMS when it began its work, actually began with Muslims and caste Hindus in North India. It is only when they were disappointed that they turned, very reluctantly to the poor.

James Massey of the Indian Society for e Promotion of Christian Knowledge has written about how CMS, in particular, was forced to the poor. The missionaries didn’t want to because they thought, that if they went to the poor, they would cut off their relations with the rich. What are the limits to this kind of presence, and how can they be affirmed as well as transcended. I know that here in Africa there are many ways in which Christian presence is being expressed in terms of tribes or of ethnic identity at any rate. Archbishop David Gitari often talks of the work among the nomadic peoples of Northern Kenya, and I have had some experience of nomadic work in the South of Pakistan. The people who used to come and study with us were catechists who were going be ordained, - very often catechists can be ordained. The stories they used to tell us was that the problem with evangelising nomadic people is that you come into contact with them, you tell them about the Gospel and they disappear in the nature of the case. Three years later they appear again and you have to start all over again. So how do you take people on, how do you nurture them, that was their problem? I think that was also the problem in Northern Kenya, but the Kenyan answer was, to send the evangelists and the teachers with the nomads. Buy them a camel and a tent and send them off!

But then of course, we do have to come to Proclamation, the second P, if you like. The verb kerusse is the proclamation of the Gospel in the New Testament, the preaching of the Gospel. From this comes the term kerygma. But what is kerygma? When you hear that word kerygma what do you think it means, the actual message, yes, the core, yes, anything else? kerygma actually means the core belief, the bare bones of Christian faith and the two of course are related. It is in the proclamation, the kerusse, in the preaching that you discover what the core is. You don’t sit down somewhere and write a tome of systematic theology to discover what the bare bones of the Christian faith are, you discover that in the preaching itself. That is pretty basic. The difficulty of course is that the evangelists are preaching in different contexts. They are not preaching in a mono cultural situation. Certainly in the UK now, even in a parish the situation is not mono cultural. People of different cultures, different world views, different value systems are living cheek by jowl. So how is the preaching to be done and the bare bones of the faith to be discerned? The Primates have tried to do it of course, very well, I think. But of course, the point is, that it is done in context.

In the New Testament already we find that when the preaching is to the Jewish people, the great kerygmatic speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, the whole of salvation history is rehearsed; how God has been working among those people andnow how he is bringing them back to a fulfilment of the story of Jesus. But when the Gospel has to be preached to those who have no such Jewish background, then the evangelists take a different line, can you think of any examples in the New Testament, of where that happens. Athens, I thought everybody would say that but it happens once before at Lystra, I think it is in Acts 14. You remember they tried to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, and they stopped them and they then explained that the Good News, which they are bringing is of the God who has revealed himself to these people. There is always a sense of God that people have and he has not left himself without witness anywhere. Not left himself without witness anywhere. But now the challenge has come to them in the story of Jesus and of course you mention Athens. Paul is left alone in Athens as a good Jew his spirit bur gainst the idolatry that he sees all around and yet, when he comes to his speech in the Areopagus he begins with the native religious sense of the Athenians and he tries to connect with them, not only with the reference to the unknown God but the quotations which he uses from the Greek poems. “In him we live and move and have our being”. That was not said by a Jew, it is not in the Old Testament so this is what St Paul means I suppose when he says to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Gentile I became a Gentile (I Cor 9). You see it is not just an external thing that you proclaim the Gospel to people in one way but you believe it in another way yourself. That is not authentic enculturation or contextualisation. You know, missionaries in Pakistan when they come to Pakistan, they say they mustn’t place the Bible on the floor, because that is a cultural value that they have learned. But as soon as they return from wherever they came, they put it back on the floor - I mean they have not learned anything! So proclamation necessarily leads us to ask the question to whom is the Gospel being proclaimed.

After the New Testament period, when we come to the second century, the second century is the century of the great Christian apologists. People who had to give an account of the faith to a pagan environment. Now they had many difficulties with that environment. We must never underestimate that: they did not in any way endorse all that they saw. But if you think of just two of them, Justin Martyr who lived in the middle of the second century and Clement of Alexandria towards the end of the second century. They are able first of all to see some truth, which is leading people to a true knowledge of God in the philosophy of those around them. They don’t endorse everything in that philosophy, but where the philosophy talks about order and the reason, the universal reason, which brings order to our world, then they can say yes because it is this universal reason that has been revealed in Jesus Christ. That is one reason, of course, why Anglicans give such a high place to reason. In the poetry, now the Christians of the second century did not think very much of pagan poetry, they thought it was idolatrous, it was corrupt. But where they could see the truth even in poetry they quoted it, like St Paul in Athens. They used whatever was to hand. The morality of the Sotics, already we find that reflected in the passages of the New Testament, Ephesians, Colossians and so forth. And even the prophecies of some of the oracles of the day were seen as a prophecy of the coming of Christ. So all of that was usable.

Now when we try to relate the Gospel to culture, whether you call that the process of inculturation, culture may refer much more to people’s tradition, customs and values; or you refer to it as contextualisation, where it may refer more to the socio-economic and political conditions. Whatever you do and wherever your emphasis lies, we still have to ask what are the limits to inculturation and to contextualisation. The Pope in an Encyclical written some years ago said that there were two: The nature of the Gospel itself is a limit, you can’t compromise that, and the fellowship between believers is another limit, so that I should not do anything in my preaching and living the gospel that compromises you. This is for the Anglican tradition a first order question that we must recognise and respect the gospel in one another and to make sure that we are not a stumbling block for our brother or sister in another context. I used to feel this when working on the Indian border. John said I was Bishop of Raiwind, almost on the Indian border, and at that time we could cross over into India to spend the day. As soon as you crossed the border, you could see the difference, but not only do you see the difference in life generally, but also in how people worship, how they handle the scriptures. In Pakistan, people are, of necessity influenced by their Islamic environment, they want to be Christians in an Islamic environment, worship is therefore simple, Bible centred, preaching orientated and so forth. You cross over into India and there is incense and candles and flowers and colour and all sorts of things. And I used to ask myself the question: When would Christians in Pakistan cease to see the faith in their brothers and sisters in India, because the expression of the faith has become so different. That must be a concern with us all the time.

But proclamation in itself of course is not enough if we have a concern for the whole Gospel and therefore I have another word Praxis or Practice, how we are to life our faith and we need to begin I think here with worship. In the New Testament it is the worship of Christians that brings about awe in those around them. The very beginning of the story of the Christian community, when they see them praying together, breaking bread together, worshipping in the Temple together they are impressed by how God is working among them. Later on of course, because of persecution and so on, worship became much less visible to the outside world, even so the early Christians are constantly telling their pagan hearers and readers of the importance of Christian worship. In some situations and cultures, worship is the only way in which Christians can witness in the Coptic Church in Egypt. The Coptic liturgist Maurice Assad has said quite often that for the Coptic Church, because it was a persecuted church, has been a persecuted church for the whole of its history. Worship has been the only way in which it has been able to witness to the Gospel, and that is why there is so much care taken over worship in the Coptic Church, not just in its conduct, its preparation, in the building, and so on. We also saw this with the Orthodox Churches in the Communist Countries where often it was simply the presence of the building, the possibility of worship that was all that was possible.

There are three things about worship that I would just like to mention very quickly. The first is the visibility of worship; certainly in the United Kingdom, Christian worship is almost invisible. You know, people go into their churches, they lock the door and then they worship. They draw a curtain, ritually, and so people outside don’t know what is going on inside. I was once coming out in a procession from a church, and the bishop is almost always last, and there were some young people on bicycles. They came up and said, what do you do in there? You know, I stopped and said, well we sing and pray and so forth, but they had no idea what happened inside. In the West certainly, the visibility of Christian worship has to be recovered, whether that is through this new custom of procession on Good Friday, for instance, processions of witness, or whether it is through outdoor worship or sometimes even having glass doors or glass walls in churches, I think the glass door may be a very important missionary aid, certainly for churches in the United Kingdom. In Africa, I was saying in the Cathedral on Sunday morning, the first time I came to Nairobi, I was so impressed with the streams of people going to church on a Sunday. I mean, that made it visible, and you see this all over Africa of course, you also see it in many parts of Asia. I like the way in which Colombo Cathedral, it is in the middle of a square, and it really doesn’t have walls, just pillars and so everybody round about can see or hear what is going on inside.

Visibility and then accessibility. The accessibility of worship, this is rooted in the Anglican tradition, it goes back to the book of Common Prayer that worship must be such as can be understood by the people. That was Cranmer’s commitment, not to produce a classic text that was aesthetically pleasing, of course it would become that, but in a tongue that can be understood by the people, the accessibility of worship is so important for mission, and then its availability.

Visibility, Accessibility, Availability for mission. So often people say about the celebration of the Eucharist, “Bishop this has no missionary aspect to it, this is a rite for Christians”. But of course they ignore that it to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Even the Eucharist, particularly the Eucharist, should be missionary, and I was delighted to see here in the Chapel out in the Resurrection Garden there is that passage from 1 Corinthians “To proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”.

Worship and then witness, if kerygma is proclamation, witness is martyria, from which of course we get the word martyr. It doesn’t just of course mean giving up your life, but Christian witness which is costly, in the early centuries of the Church, there were not many full time missionaries and evangelists at all. The Gospel spread through the witness of ordinary Christians; the wife staying with a pagan husband, for instance; servants performing their work honourably and faithfully; those who had particular responsibility in the state doing their work properly. That is how it actually spread and I think witness and worship are very closely related. Bishop Stephen Sykes says in one of his articles which he wrote for the Decade of Evangelism; “that those who repent and are renewed by worship can then go out to proclaim the joy of the resurrection”. So worship actually provides the inspiration for witness.

Then, of course, within this area of how Christians live, Praxis, there are works of love, absolutely central to the early Christians who were constantly found in the least reputable parts of the city. This was often the objection of pagan husbands, to their wives becoming Christians that they would be found in the worst parts of the city. In the manumission of slaves, Wilberforce was not the first to discover that slavery was inhuman. Of course he did discover it for himself, and he initiated a wonderful movement, which is related to our missionary movement particularly to bodies like the CMS. But the sense that slavery was an evil was based, goes back to Galatians 3:28 saying there is neither slave nor free in Christ. So Christians spent a lot of time in the manumission of slaves and when the emperor Constantine became sympathetic to Christianity, he gave the Church a special role in this area.

We have worship, we have witness we have works of love. proclamation, therefore, and praxis have to be held together, but I haven’t mentioned the prophetic and that is an important aspect of Christian mission when it is understood in this holistic way. People of course mean very different things by the prophetic and again I don’t want to drive a wedge between the different ones. We need to take our cue from how the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus himself exercised their prophetic ministry. It is certainly true that the prophetic is not simply saying fashionable things. It must be a word from God, a word that comes either directly to the believers from God or comes to the believer from the scriptures or comes to the believer from the ministry of the Church. I say that the prophetic is important because Anglicanism has been, well, Zac was saying a religion of kings, and it could be seen as a church that simply endorses the status quo. And in some cases it has done so. If I had the opportunity, I would tell you about the strong tradition of dissent that Anglicanism has had particularly since the Reformation.

Well the Reformation itself of course was a kind of movement of dissent, but the Puritans who felt that the Reformation had not finished but must continue, the non jurors who refused to take the oath to King William and Queen Mary because they had already taken an oath to James II and they said they could not break that oath and for that reason they lost their employment, bishops lost their sees, even the Archbishop of Canterbury at that time lost his see, because of the stand. We then had the catholic movement in Anglicanism that began in the 19th century, which wanted to see the church particularly as a spiritual society distinct from, though not unrelated to, the state. Sometimes we are called to exercise a prophetic ministry which is not just about, what is the word, doing good works. It is not just about development, even, but it has to do with saying uncomfortable things to the church and to the world in a particular context. Now Archbishop David Gitari in this context of Kenya has been very brave in his own prophetic ministry which has been deeply rooted in the Bible itself. It is not that he is a politician, but when he has seen injustice in the land he has spoken out as an integral part of his Christian mission. I think he will be long remembered for that. He has also been a church planter, a liturgist and all sorts of other things, but I think it is his prophetic ministry in a very difficult phase of the history of this country which has made mist impact.

So the prophetic is important, and if we are to have wholeness in mission then itmust be programmatic. That is to say it has to be worked out in a more or less detailed programme at every level, whether that is provincial or diocesan or in the parish. It cannot be left simply to the realm of ideas and I am sure in the next few days you will be working out programmes for the Anglican Communion as a whole in terms of our missionary priorities. What typically would such a programme have in it? I mean, it could certainly have something of proclamation, something of Christian living or practice of the Christian faith, something of the prophetic.

And then finally this word Partnership, koinonia, which we often translate, fellowship in the New Testament, but at the very beginning of his letter to the Philippians, St Paul uses it in a particular way “koinonia eis to euangelion”. The fellowship or a partnership, which is for the sake of the Gospel. That is the kind of partnership the churches should be looking for in the Anglican Communion. The fellowship or partnership for the sake of the Gospel. For Paul there are three kinds of partnership: there is the partnership of those who work closely with him, Barnabas and Silas were mentioned this morning; the people he called his synergoi, his fellow workers in the Gospel, and these might be mission agencies, there are so many mission agencies now burgeoning as it were in different provinces of the Anglican Communion. In South India alone in relationship with the Church of South India there are 3,500 cross cultural missionaries. I am sure there will be stories from Korea, Singapore, Africa. Then secondly he talks of the partnership of a Church with the Apostolic band. He says about the Philippian Church, the Church at Philippi was mentioned yesterday, that it was only this church that supported him in his missionary work at first, a particular relationship that a church has with missionaries, not just people it has sent, St Paul was not sent by Philippi. And then thirdly he speaks of the fellowship between the churches or among the churches, in II Corinthians 8 and 9 for instance, once again Philippi is involved here, the church from Macedonia has shown its partnership with the Churches in Judea. A partnership he says based on the princ of equality. He urges the churches in Corinth to emulate the example of the Churches in Macedonia of which of course Philippi was the chief.

The Anglican Communion through the Partnership in Mission process has of course developed this third kind of partnership to a very great extent, and if the development of Anglican structures don’t produce anything else, then that is enough, this principle of mutual interdependence, that has been developed through the whole life of the Anglican Consultative Council, I think it was at the first or second meeting that the principles were enunciated, but they are still being used and applied in many of our relationships, but the question that I want to leave with you is what about the other two kinds of partnership, where are they in Anglicanism? Can we identify them and what value do they have for us? The partnership of St Paul’s partners in the Gospel, teams of people committed to a common task, where can we see them, what are they doing? And also how are local churches supporting such work. So I began with Easter, and we saw how Easter itself reminds us of our commitment to the wholeness of the human person, the wholeness of Christian mission. We went on to consider Presence, Proclamation, Practice of the Christian Faith, the Prophetic, the Programmatic and finally the importance of Partnership.

The Inter Anglican Provincial Mission and Evangelism Co-ordinators Consultation
Encounters on the Road
Resurrection Gardens, Nairobi, Kenya May 2002